HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-23 - AGENDA REPORTS - UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (2)PUBLIC HEARING
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT:
AGENDA REPORT
March 23, 1993
City Manager Approva
Item to be presented
Lynn M. Harriv(-�ZL 4,w
Provisions for second units In the Unified Development Code
Community Development
Under the original Santa Clarita Municipal Code (as adopted from Los Angeles County), second
units (or senior citizen residences) were subject to a conditional use permit (approximately a
$5,000 application fee). Under the draft UDC, a new level of review (minor use permit) was
created which allowed for staff review and a fee of $535. As originally approved by the Planning
Commission, the UDC allowed for second units for senior citizens (with a minor use permit),
with specific provisions for their development.
The Council considered removing the. age restriction on these units from the UDC. Citizen Input
resulted In referring the issue of all types of second units back to the Planning Commission to
determine If an amendment to the UDC was necessary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a total of four public hearings on second units, and at the
February 16, 1993, Commission meeting, agreed to recommend that the Council adopt
Ordinance 93-2 to amend the Unified Development Code.
Provision 17.15.020K.3. of the draft ordinance states that "second units shall not be rented."
The Commission feels that this provision may act as a deterrent to the proliferation of rental
units In single-family neighborhoods, yet stili provide housing for elderly parents or adult
children behind the primary residence. The Commission agreed (4-1) that the likely inability of
the City to enforce the non -rental prohibition does not outweigh the value of the provision.
Staff recommends that the Council: 1) Receive the staff presentation; 2) Adopt Resolution No.
93-32, approving the Negative Declaration with the finding that the proposed ordinance will not
have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Introduce Ordinance No. 93-2 for
amendment to the Unified Development Code, waive further reading, and pass to a second
reading.
ATTACHMENTS adopted' -3 --s
_ 93
1) Proposed Resolution No. 93-32 (L`d
2) Proposed Negative Declaration LMH:KMK
3) Proposed Ordinance No. 93-2.
caunc/llavdczukmk
Agenda item:
41 -IS
Public Hearing
' Procedure
1. Mayor Opens Hearing
• States purpose of hearing
2. City Clerk reports on hearing notice
3. Staff Report
• City Manager
or
• City Attorney
or
• RP Staff
4. Proponent Argument (30 minutes)
5. Opponent Argument (30 minutes)
6. Five-minute rebuttal (Proponent)
• Proponent
7. Mayor closes public testimony
8. Discussion by Council
9. Council decision
10. Mayor announces decision
1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROVISIONS FOR SECOND UNITS IN THE
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
A Public Hearing on provisions for second units In the Unified Development Code will be heard
by the City Council. Pursuant to Council direction, the Planning Commission has held a series
of public hearings and developed provisions for the development of second units for inclusion
In the Unified Development Code.
The hearing will be held by the City Council In the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia
Blvd., 1st Floor, Santa Clarlta, the 23rd day of March, 1993, at or after 6:30 p.m. to consider
provisions for second units.
Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at
that time. Further Information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa
Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita.
If you wish to challenge this order In court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you
or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to the public hearing.
Date: February 26, 1993
Donna M. Grindey, CMC
City Clerk
Publish Date: March 2, 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 93-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 93-2,
AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
(PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SECOND UNITS)
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare:
A. That the City of Santa Clarita has Initiated an amendment (proposed Ordinance No.
93-2) to the City's - Unified Development Code to establish provisions for the
development of second units In single-family residential zones. These provisions
were excluded from the Unified Development Code when it was adopted by the
Council on November 24, 1992.
B. That a proposed Negative Declaration was prepared for the Ordinance based on the
Initial Study findings and the determination that the proposed Ordinance would not
have a significant effect on the environment, would not impact resources protected
by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that a finding of de minimus
impact on such resources was appropriate.
C. That the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita conducted a public
hearing on February 16,1993, pursuant to applicable law, to consider an amendment
to the Unified Development Code for the City of Santa Clarita, and, through minute
action, recommended that the City Council adopt proposed Ordinance No. 93-2.
D. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, the Council further finds
and determines that the proposed Negative Declaration Is consistent with the goals
and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the Negative Declaration complies
with all other applicable requirements of state law and local guidelines.
E. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines
that the Negative Declaration Is in compliance with CEQA and that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. The Negative Declaration for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit A and by
this reference Incorporated herein, Is hereby approved. The Director of Community Development
is hereby directed to file the Negative Declaration with the County Clerk of the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
1, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting
thereof, held on the day of 1993 by the following vote of
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Clerk
cwncihv9 kmk
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMIT/PROJECT: Ordinance No. 93-2
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Amendment to the Unified Development Code regarding
provisions for the development of second units on single family residential lots
Based on the information contained In the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to
the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of
Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment,
and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
LYNN M. HARRIS
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Prepared
Approved
Krlsti Kimbrough, Assistant Planner
(Namelrftle)
Don Williams, Senior Planner
(Name/TSIe)
Public Review Period From March 2. 1993 To March 23. 1993.
Public Notice Given On March 2, 1993 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:------------------------------------~---
ORDINANCE NO. 93-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE,
SUBSECTION 17.15.020K, RELATING TO SECOND UNITS
AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subsection 17.15.020K of the Santa Clarlta Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"K. Second Units as Accessory Structures. Second units pursuant to Government Code
Section 65852.2 shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of this Subsection
17.15.020K.
1. A second unit may be established on a lot or parcel of land having not less
than 1.5 times the required area or 10,000 gross square feet, whichever is
less.
2. A second unit shall not exceed one story in height unless such unit is
attached to the main structure on the site.
3. Second units shall not be rented.
4. One standard parking space, which may be uncovered, shall be provided for
the second unit. Such parking space shall not be located In the required
front or side setback for the single family residence which is the primary use
of the property.
5. No second unit shall encroach Into the required setback area for the single
family residence which is the primary use of the property and no variance
shall be granted for encroachment Into such setback.
6. The lot or parcel of land on which the second unit Is constructed shall
contain a legal or pre-existing legal single family residence as the primary
use.
7. A second unit of up to 600 square feet shall be subject to the approval of a
minor use permit. A second unit In excess of 600 square feet shall be
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit application."
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, If any, received at the public
hearing, and upon studies and Investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City
Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that the project is
consistent with the General Plan, and the proposed project complies with all other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance.
SECTION 3. The City. of .Santa Clarha City. Council has reviewed and considered the Initial
Study prepared for the project and finds and determines as follows:
a. Said study found that no adverse Impact to the existing and future environment
would result from the proposed Ordinance.
b. The proposed Ordinance would not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and the proposed Negative Declaration was prepared, posted, and
advertised on March 2, 1993, In accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
C. The City Council, based upon the determinations set forth above, hereby finds the
Negative Declaration is In compliance with CEQA and certifies the Negative
Declaration prepared for Ordinance No. 93-2.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after
adoption.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
1, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarlta at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of 1993, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
Icuu1e1U.J-2ud1-t,*
0
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Case Planner: Kristi Kimbrough, Assistant Planner
Project Location: Citywide
Project Description and Setting: Amendment to the Unified Development Code - Provisions for the
development of second units on single family residential lots.
Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
In geologic substructures? ....................... [ ] (] [XI
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil? ...................... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
C.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? ................................. [ ]
[ ]
IXI
d.
The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? .......... [ ]
[ I
[XI
e.
Any Increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? .................... [ ]
[ I
[XI
f.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ....... [ ]
[ I
[X]
g.
Changes In deposition, erosion or siltation? ......... [ ]
[ ]
[X]
h.
Other modification of a wash, channel,
creek, or river? ................................ I l
[ ]
IXI
1.
Earth movement (cut and/or 1111) of 10,000
cubic yards or more? ........................... I ]
[ I
IXI
I.
Development and/or grading on a slope
greater than 25% natural grade? .................. [ ]
[ ]
[X]
k. Development within the Alqulst-Prlolo
Special Studies Zone? .......................... [ ] [ ] [X]
I. Other? ....................................... [1 I [XI
.3-
2. Air. Will the proposal result In:
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? ............................ [ ]
[ I [XI
b.
The creation of objectionable odors? ............... [ ]
[ I [XI
C.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? ...................... [ ]
[ I [XI
d.
Other? ...................................... II
II IXl
3. Water.
Will the proposal result In:
a.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? ................................ []
[I IXl
b.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? ................................. [ ]
[ I IXI
C.
Change in the amount of surface water
In any water body? ............................. [I
I1 VI
d.
Discharge Into surface waters, or In any
alteration of surface water quality, In-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .................... [ ]
[ I [XI
e.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? .....:................... [ I
I I [XI
f.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through Interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ................... [ ]
J] [XI
g.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ............................... []
[1 [XI
h.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ................. [ ]
[ ] [XI
1. Other? ................ .................... [] [I [XI
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result In:
5.
6.
7.
P
-4-
YES MAYBE NO
a.
Change In the diversity of species or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ............
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? ..............
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of plants Into
an area, or In a barrier to the normal re-
plenishment of existing species? ..................
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop? .......................................
[] I [X]
Animal Life. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Change In the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals Including reptiles, fish and
Insects or mlcrofauna)? .........................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? ............
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Introduction of new species of animals
Into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? .............
[ ] [ ] [X]
d.
Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat and/or migratory routes? ..................
[ ] [ ] [X]
Noise.
Will the proposal result in:
a.
Increases in existing noise levels? .................
(] [ ] [X]
b.
Exposure of people to severe or
unacceptable noise levels? ......................
[ ] [ ] [X]
C.
Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ...........
[ ] [ ] [X]
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
substantial
new light or glare? ..........................
[ ] [ ] [X]
Land Use. WIII the proposal result In:
a.
Substantial alteration of the present
land use of an area? .............................
[ ] [ ] [X]
b.
A substantial alteration of the
planned land use of an area? .....................
[ ] [ ] [X]
9.
10.
11.
12.
-5 -
YES MAYBE NO
C. A use that does not adhere to existing
zoning laws? .................................
[] I] [X1
d.
A use that does not adhere to established
development criteria? .............:.............
[ ] [ ] [X]
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result In:
a.
Increase In the rate of use of any natural
resources? ...................................
I] [] VI
b.
Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resources? .............................
[] [ 1 [X]
Risk
of Upset/Man-Made Hazards. WIII the proposal:
a.
Involve a risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) In the event of an accident or
Upset conditions? ..............................
[] 11 [XI
b.
Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard-
ous or toxic materials (Including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? ...................................
[ 1 . [ 1 1X1
C.
Possible Interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? .......................................
[] 11 IX1
d.
Otherwise expose people to potential safety
hazards? .....................................
[] 11 [X]
Population. Will the proposal:
a.
Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? ..........................
[I [ ] [X1
b.
Other? .......................................
I1 I1 [X1
Housing. WIII the proposal:
a.
Remove or otherwise affect existing
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? ............................
[ 1 [ 1 [X]
b.
Other? .......................................
[) [] [X1
W -Z
YES MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Clrculation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? ............................
[ ]
I ] [X]
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? .....................
[ ]
[ I [X]
C. Substantial Impact upon existing
transportation systems, Including public
transportation? ................................
[]
[I IXI'
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? ................................
[]
I] [XI
e. Increase In traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ................
[ ]
I ] [XI
f. A disjointed pattern of roadway
Improvements? ................................
I1
I] IX]
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result In a need for new or altered govern-
mental services In any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? ...............................
I ]
I I IXI
b. Police protection? .............................
I ]
I ] [X]
C. Schools? ....................................
[]
II [XI
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ...............
(]
( I [XI
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
Including roads? ..............................
I ]
I I [XI ,
f. Other governmental services? ....................
[ ]
[] [XI
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in?
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy? ..................................
[]
II IXI
b. Substantial Increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy? .........
[ ]
( ] [X]
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result In a need
.7 -
YES MAYBE NO
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? ..........................
[ ]
b. Communications systems? ......................
[ ]
C. Water systems? ...............................
[ ]
d. Sanitary sewer systems? ........................
[ ]
e. Storm drainage systems? ........................
[ ]
I. Solid waste and disposal systems? ....... ...
[ ]
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed
or Inefficient pattern of delivery system
Improvements for any of the above? .................
[ ]
17. Human Health. WIII the proposal result In:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? ............
[ I
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? .....................................
[1
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public? ........................
[ ]
b. Will the proposal result In the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? ...........................
[ l
C. WIII the visual Impact of the proposal
be detrimental to the surrounding area? ............
[ ]
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? ............................
[ ]
20. Cultural Resources.
[Mott -J]
[ 1 [XI
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? ..................... [ ] [ ] [XI
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
-$-
YES MAYBE NO
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? .............. [ ] [ ] [Xj
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? .................... [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential Impact area? [ 1 [ ] [X]
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" FINDING
Will the project have an adverse effect either
Individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife
resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose
of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants,
fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities,
Including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends
for Its continued viability".
Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.)
Introduction to Discussion of Impacts.
........................ [1 [N/A] [X]
The Unlf led Development Code was adopted by the City Council on November 24, 1992, replacing
the existing City zoning, grading, and subdivision regulations; a Negative Declaration was prepared
and approved for the project. Provisions for the development of second units were omitted from .
the UDC at the time of adoption and referred back to the Planning Commission for additional
consideration. Proposed Ordinance No. 93.2 establishes development standards for second units.
Discussion of Impacts.
Second units up to 600 square feet In area will be subject to -the approval of a minor use permit;
second units greater than 600 square feet In area will be subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit. Both permits require environmental review and notification of surrounding property
owners. Through Its authority to deny or approve with conditions, the City can ensure 1) that a
second unit Is appropriate for the property on a case-by-case basis, and 2) that any Impacts are
mitigated. In addition to individual conditions of approval, the following development standards
are proposed for all second units:
1. A second unit may be established on a lot or parcel of land having not less than 1.5 times
the required area or 10,000 gross square feet, whichever Is less.
2. A second unit shall not exceed one story In height unless such unit is attached to the main
structure on the site.
3. Second units shall not be rented.
4. One standard parking space, which may be uncovered, shall be provided for the second
.9.
YES MAYBE NO
unit. Such parking space shall not be located in the required front or side setback for the
single family residence which is the primary use of the property.
5. No second unit shall encroach Into the required setback area for the single-family residence
which Is the primary use of the property and no variance shall be granted for encroachment
Into such setback.
6. The lot or parcel of land on which the second unit is constructed shall contain a legal or
pre-existing legal single-family residence as the primary use.
7. A second unit of up to 600 square feet shall be subject to the approval of a minor use
permit. A second unit in excess of 600 square feet shall be subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit application."
Noise. Second units will be subject to the standard setback. requirements for single-family
residences and will not be eligible for a variance from these requirements, thereby reducing
potential noise Impacts to adjacent residences. Also, all development Is subject to the City's noise
ordinance which is anticipated to further reduce potential Impacts to an insignificant level.
Land Use. The development of second units on single-family residential lots has the potential to
Increase density beyond that established by the City's General Plan; however, It is anticipated that
the provisions proposed in Ordinance 93-2 will reduce potential Impacts to an insignificant level,
as follows:
1) Second units will be permitted only on lots with not less than 1.5 times the minimum square
footage required by the zone or 10,000 square feet, whichever Is less. By limiting
development of second units to larger lots, Impacts associated with higher density
development are reduced.
2) Second units, by definition, contain kitchen facilities, which creates potential for a
proliferation of second units as additional Income sources for homeowners. A proliferation
of second units in single family residential zones would not be consistent with the City's
General Plan. Proposed Ordinance 93.2 will prohibit renting of second units, thereby
limiting residency of these structures primarily to family members, such as teen-agers or
elderly parents, or will result In their use as "up -graded" guest houses (due to the presense
of kitchen facilities).
Housing. State law requires that cities allow for the development of senior residences if they meet
specific requirements; local jurisdictions may not strictly prohibit their development. Although
proposed Ordinance 93-2 will not limit habitation of second units to seniors, It is aniticipated that
these units will often be used by elderly relatives of the owners of the single-family residence on
the property. Therefore, It Is aniticipated that proposed Ordinance 93-2 will Increase the City's
affordable housing stock for seniors.
Transportation/Circulation. Second units will be required to have one standard parking space,
which may be uncovered; the parking space will not be permitted to be located In the required front
or side setbacks. It is anticipated that, by requiring additional parking for the unit, any Impact to
existing parking will be eliminated or reduced to an Insignificant level.
Aesthetics. Second units will be limited to one story In height, unless attached to the main
structure on the site, and will be subject to the standard setback requirements for single-family
residences. These provisions are anticipated to eliminate any detrimental visual Impacts to the
surrounding area.
The City anticipates that, with the above development standards, environmental review of each
proposed second unit, and the City's authority to deny Inappropriate land uses, that potential
environmental Impacts associated with the development of second units will be mitigated to a level
of Insignificance.
B. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IDENTIFIED
No significant effects are anticipated.
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, In part, that If any of the following
can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and
an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared.
YES MAYBE NO
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the environment Is one which occurs In a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will endure well Into the future.)
............................................ r f rXl
3. Does the project have Impacts which are.individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may Impact on two or more separate resources where the Impact on each resource Is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those Impacts on the environment Is significant.)
............................................ I1 r DO
4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or Indirectly? ...................... [ ] [ ] [X]
.12-
D.
12.
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [X]
Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILLNOT
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ ]
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ]
LYNN M. HARRISY''
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ ►►��11��
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA
4rAPpred By:
Don Williams. Senior Planner J t t3
AIgnllature) (Name/Title) (Dat
Uxk n W*2o zkr*
ORDINANCE NO. 93-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE,
SUBSECTION 17.15.020K, RELATING TO SECOND UNITS
AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subsection 17.15.020K of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code Is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"K. Second Units as Accessory Structures. Second units pursuant to Government Code
Section 65852.2 shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of this Subsection
17.15.020K.
1. A second unit may be established on a lot or parcel of land having not less
than 1.5 times the required area or 10,000 gross square feet, whichever is
less.
2. A second unit shall not exceed one story in height unless such unit is
attached to the main structure on the site.
3. Second units shall not be rented.
4. One,standard parking space, which may be uncovered, shall be provided for
the second unit. Such parking space shall not be located In the required
front or side setback for the single family residence which is the primary use
of the property.
S. No second unit shall encroach Into the required setback area for the single
family residence which Is the primary use of the property and no variance
shall be granted for encroachment Into such setback.
6. The lot or parcel of land on which the second unit Is constructed shall
contain a legal or pre-existing legal single family residence as the primary
use.
7. A second unit of up to 600 square feet shall be subject to the approval of a
minor use permit. A second unit In excess of 600 square feet shall be
subject to the approval of .a conditional use permit application."
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by taw.
1993.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day
Jan Heldt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Donna M. Grindey, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of . 1993, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
kcundA1 2u*-kmk
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk
w Sr
4
I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Ordinance was duly
adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the
day of . 1993, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
kcundA1 2u*-kmk
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Donna M. Grindey
City Clerk